Practical governance, or how I decided my husband should weed the patio

Last week I led a training session with some new trustees, in which I repeated throughout the fact that governance needs to be practical to be effective. So many people hear the word governance and switch off - they see it as box-ticking, admin, or at best some interesting blue-sky chat which doesn't necessarily go anywhere. Across the country, there are boards who struggle to make any real decisions because they've forgotten that governance is about creating meaningful change through effective organisational leadership...or they've forgotten exactly how to do that.

As I was nattering about governance in practice, I realised that I don't have a read-to-go and easily accessible example of what that looks like. Governance is often so complicated and deals with such significant and long-term matters, that bringing it back down to the ground and seeing the nuts and bolts can be quite tricky.

Today, in a moment of quiet reflection, I decided I was about due another LinkedIn article, and practical governance immediately came to mind, so I gave myself my lunch break to think of a way of making it come alive as a topic. And while aimlessly tidying the kitchen I spotted a perfect example. My patio. Stick with me.

My patio is a crazy-paving patio, and it is currently covered in weeds. Mostly dandelions, which are notoriously difficult to shift even without the glorious weather we've been having. I would like my patio to be less covered in weeds, for a couple of reasons:

1. I will enjoy the space more if it's tidy, so I'll be more likely to use the patio and get a positive wellbeing benefit from being outdoors.
2. My neighbours have a spotless garden, and can see right across the wall how unkempt ours is at the moment.

So in governance terms, what are we dealing with here? We have a situation and a couple of things are arising from this situation. Firstly, there's an opportunity to increase impact and engagement of the space. Secondly, there's a mild reputational risk to be managed.

Now, my patio is not perfect, but it is meeting acceptable standards. The risk is minimal, and the space is still usable and functional. If we were doing tick-box governance we could glance across my patio and agree that it is fit-for-purpose and not an organisation priority. We could agree that we've given it appropriate time and move onto other matters on the agenda.

Alternatively, we could acknowledge that the patio is not perfect, but we could fall into the trap of assuming that action will be taken without us making a decision. After all, I can't be the only person seeing those weeds...eventually someone will do something about them, they'll appear on someone's priority list and the magical weeding fairies will sort it all out.

Where governance becomes practical, decision-makers assess the information they are given and then go beyond just a cursory glance, and beyond the assumption that it's someone else's problem to fix. So to be really practical, we should have a think about how we capitalise on the opportunity being presented by the patio. If we can increase impact and engagement, what do we need to consider in order to get us there?

Let's go back to first principles, always a great place to start in governance. What are our objects? Does taking action around this opportunity align with our objects? In this case, I'd say yes, because the objects governing our house are that we are striving to make it a lovely place to exist (especially as we spend so much time here, as a household of home-based consultants). If we take action to improve the patio, we'll be furthering our cause. Great.

Next let's think about our decision-making duties:

1. Are we furthering our objects for public benefit? - well, if we consider our relevant sector of the public to be my household then yes, this project meets that aim.
2. Are we complying with our rules and the law? - good question. There aren't any regulations attached to my patio, so I think we're safe. Glad we checked though.
3. Is it in our organisation's best interest? - the metaphor slightly falls apart here, because of course I'm making this decision with heaps of personal interest involved, but I can also take the view that it will make the house more marketable if we decided to sell. So I'm going with yes.
4. Are we being accountable in this decision? - see this blog for me ensuring I am held to account for my patio being weeded.
5. What resources are available for this project, and are we deploying them in the right way? - the key resource I have to support this work is my husband. As a decision-maker even when I am acting practically, it's important to recognise the need to delegate. I think he'll do the job very well, and I believe he's got the capacity. If he disagrees (imagine) then we'll have to return to this question.
6. Am I taking reasonable care and skill in making this decision? - I know I'm not a natural gardener, so I'm capitalising on my husband's strength in that area to make sure that the project is done well. And I'm taking appropriate time over the decision and considering the options. Some might even say writing a blog is taking too much time over the decision. Can't comment on that.

Now, did I need to apply this level of governance and decision-making to an inconsequential choice about my patio? No, of course not. But, as a decision-maker I do need to be active rather than passive in how I make decisions which affect others and this is just a small example of how every decision we make has practical implications.

As trustees and senior leaders, it's so important not to fall into the trap of thinking that governance is not practical, and that decisions made in the boardroom don't have a material impact to the people we work with and serve. Passively nodding through policies, assuming that the practicalities will be handled by someone else, or at worst avoiding making the difficult decisions at all, is fatal for good governance and can be catastrophic for organisations.

All this being said, practical governance does not mean doing everything. Delegation is key, as well as being proportionate about the information we ask for to facilitate our decision-making. Trustees should not take governance so far into the practical sphere that they overstep into the roles designated for staff - we employ experts in our organisations for good reason.

And that's why I really think that the most appropriate and proportionate decision is that my husband should weed the patio.